Marijuana legalization clashes with drug testing in the workplace

[Moonglow]

What's next for liberals? Now let's mandate that companies have to hire a certain percentage of meth attics and heroine addicts cause they are a discriminated against part of the population. I vote yes.

Seriously this is bullshit though. If I own a company with tough positions and they're on my payroll, I will require drug tests. If anything else it will keep people away who are too dumb to pass a drug test using someone else s urine.

yep..I can make my own income through my own efforts...

As do I. But if the bender-overs continue to let the whole thing slide, the day will come when we're required to test ourselves. Presumably some of us will have to inform ourselves that we can't hire ourselves because the chemical test says no and the what the State wants is more important.

If you fly a commercial airplane, drive a commercial truck, operate a commercial train, drive a commercial bus and own the business, it is already there.

I don't drive a commercial truck today. But I used to, for years. Never needed a pee test or blood test.

My eldest son is driving a big rig and he says they hardly ever test him on the road and he works 28 days out of the month. He has no wife or kids...

And when they do, not if, and if he tests positive, he is out of work and will lose his CDL.

How, he's clean.. My kids don't use any illegal drugs...I raised them without the bad shame that Americans have about drugs and alcohol...

 

[Pogo]

Except a "drug test" is not a concentration test. It's a chemical analysis, from which assumptions must be extrapolated.

Aye, there's the rub.

The liability that a company must take on is very high, one accident in a commercial vehicle can wipe an entire company out and put 100s out of work.

--- which is why such a test would be done after that accident, just as a breathalyzer test might be done on a driver. Makes sense. The difference is in the pre-emptive testing, when nothing has happened to show just cause.

Nomsayin'?

Do a job that doesn't require drug testing, that is your right.

Unless I'm being hired as a guinea pig to test drugs, no one has any reason or basis to invade one's bodily fluids.

That is your opinion, and if I am hiring a person, I have a right to hire or not hire based on the results of a drug test.

And assuming you're not hiring as a drug test guinea pig, in which case it would actually matter, what's your basis for that? It has to be something a little more solid than "because George Bush said so".

I don't care what Bush said, it isn't relevant to me, however it is some how relevant to you.

A business owner is hiring, he risks his business, you risk nothing. If an accident happens, the liability is all on the owner, not the druggie. A druggie is more likely to steal, more likely to have an accident, more likely to have health issues, higher absentee issues. I am all for not hiring smokers. If you want to engage in high risk behavior, that is well within your rights, but an employer has rights to keep his business as low of risk as possible.

You didn't answer the question.
The question was, what is your BASIS? A string of undocumented ipse dixit "more likelies" is not a basis. What "might" happen is not reality.

If the world worked that way you could never leave the house because you "might" get hit by lightning or a meteor. You couldn't even eat, since you "might" get food poisoning. What's your basis based in reality?

 

[Moonglow]

What's next for liberals? Now let's mandate that companies have to hire a certain percentage of meth attics and heroine addicts cause they are a discriminated against part of the population. I vote yes.

Seriously this is bullshit though. If I own a company with tough positions and they're on my payroll, I will require drug tests. If anything else it will keep people away who are too dumb to pass a drug test using someone else s urine.

If you fly a commercial airplane, drive a commercial truck, operate a commercial train, drive a commercial bus and own the business, it is already there.

I don't drive a commercial truck today. But I used to, for years. Never needed a pee test or blood test.

My eldest son is driving a big rig and he says they hardly ever test him on the road and he works 28 days out of the month. He has no wife or kids...

It's the companies right to test if they want too. They chose not to so that's what they want to do.

Good for them, it's their company they can run it as they see fit, does not mean I have to submit to their will....

I guess you could join all the other jobless druggies...

Yeah, were is this happening at?

 

[Papageorgio]

It's an invasion of privacy...I would never work for a company that did drug testing.. They can keep their money...

Their right to require drug testing, your right not to take the job.

yep..I can make my own income through my own efforts...

As do I. But if the bender-overs continue to let the whole thing slide, the day will come when we're required to test ourselves. Presumably some of us will have to inform ourselves that we can't hire ourselves because the chemical test says no and the what the State wants is more important.

If you fly a commercial airplane, drive a commercial truck, operate a commercial train, drive a commercial bus and own the business, it is already there.

I don't drive a commercial truck today. But I used to, for years. Never needed a pee test or blood test.

I know a former CDL driver that drove for years, a month ago got chosen for a random, he lost his CDL for marijuana. He is now looking for work and was discharged with cause. He will have a tough time providing for his family. But it's okay he got to smoke weed, I am sure it was well worth it.

 

[Moonglow]

Their right to require drug testing, your right not to take the job.

yep..I can make my own income through my own efforts...

As do I. But if the bender-overs continue to let the whole thing slide, the day will come when we're required to test ourselves. Presumably some of us will have to inform ourselves that we can't hire ourselves because the chemical test says no and the what the State wants is more important.

If you fly a commercial airplane, drive a commercial truck, operate a commercial train, drive a commercial bus and own the business, it is already there.

I don't drive a commercial truck today. But I used to, for years. Never needed a pee test or blood test.

I know a former CDL driver that drove for years, a month ago got chosen for a random, he lost his CDL for marijuana. He is now looking for work and was discharged with cause. He will have a tough time providing for his family. But it's okay he got to smoke weed, I am sure it was well worth it.

cause and affect....I am can show him where to get a job...

 

[Papageorgio]

What's next for liberals? Now let's mandate that companies have to hire a certain percentage of meth attics and heroine addicts cause they are a discriminated against part of the population. I vote yes.

Seriously this is bullshit though. If I own a company with tough positions and they're on my payroll, I will require drug tests. If anything else it will keep people away who are too dumb to pass a drug test using someone else s urine.

As do I. But if the bender-overs continue to let the whole thing slide, the day will come when we're required to test ourselves. Presumably some of us will have to inform ourselves that we can't hire ourselves because the chemical test says no and the what the State wants is more important.

If you fly a commercial airplane, drive a commercial truck, operate a commercial train, drive a commercial bus and own the business, it is already there.

I don't drive a commercial truck today. But I used to, for years. Never needed a pee test or blood test.

My eldest son is driving a big rig and he says they hardly ever test him on the road and he works 28 days out of the month. He has no wife or kids...

And when they do, not if, and if he tests positive, he is out of work and will lose his CDL.

How, he's clean.. My kids don't use any illegal drugs...I raised them without the bad shame that Americans have about drugs and alcohol...

I said "if". Need glasses.

 

[Moonglow]

What's next for liberals? Now let's mandate that companies have to hire a certain percentage of meth attics and heroine addicts cause they are a discriminated against part of the population. I vote yes.

Seriously this is bullshit though. If I own a company with tough positions and they're on my payroll, I will require drug tests. If anything else it will keep people away who are too dumb to pass a drug test using someone else s urine.

If you fly a commercial airplane, drive a commercial truck, operate a commercial train, drive a commercial bus and own the business, it is already there.

I don't drive a commercial truck today. But I used to, for years. Never needed a pee test or blood test.

My eldest son is driving a big rig and he says they hardly ever test him on the road and he works 28 days out of the month. He has no wife or kids...

And when they do, not if, and if he tests positive, he is out of work and will lose his CDL.

How, he's clean.. My kids don't use any illegal drugs...I raised them without the bad shame that Americans have about drugs and alcohol...

I said "if". Need glasses.

Yes I do......probably cataract surgery also, but I don't want to go to the VA......

 

[Papageorgio]

The liability that a company must take on is very high, one accident in a commercial vehicle can wipe an entire company out and put 100s out of work.

--- which is why such a test would be done after that accident, just as a breathalyzer test might be done on a driver. Makes sense. The difference is in the pre-emptive testing, when nothing has happened to show just cause.

Nomsayin'?

Do a job that doesn't require drug testing, that is your right.

Unless I'm being hired as a guinea pig to test drugs, no one has any reason or basis to invade one's bodily fluids.

That is your opinion, and if I am hiring a person, I have a right to hire or not hire based on the results of a drug test.

And assuming you're not hiring as a drug test guinea pig, in which case it would actually matter, what's your basis for that? It has to be something a little more solid than "because George Bush said so".

I don't care what Bush said, it isn't relevant to me, however it is some how relevant to you.

A business owner is hiring, he risks his business, you risk nothing. If an accident happens, the liability is all on the owner, not the druggie. A druggie is more likely to steal, more likely to have an accident, more likely to have health issues, higher absentee issues. I am all for not hiring smokers. If you want to engage in high risk behavior, that is well within your rights, but an employer has rights to keep his business as low of risk as possible.

You didn't answer the question.
The question was, what is your BASIS? A string of undocumented ipse dixit "more likelies" is not a basis. What "might" happen is not reality.

If the world worked that way you could never leave the house because you "might" get hit by lightning or a meteor. You couldn't even eat, since you "might" get food poisoning. What's your basis based in reality?

It is the company's right to require or not require, if you don't like it, get a job at someplace that doesn't. Stats bear out the risks, but I really don't care, I will take a drug test, I don't give a ****.

 

[Pogo]

Their right to require drug testing, your right not to take the job.

yep..I can make my own income through my own efforts...

As do I. But if the bender-overs continue to let the whole thing slide, the day will come when we're required to test ourselves. Presumably some of us will have to inform ourselves that we can't hire ourselves because the chemical test says no and the what the State wants is more important.

If you fly a commercial airplane, drive a commercial truck, operate a commercial train, drive a commercial bus and own the business, it is already there.

I don't drive a commercial truck today. But I used to, for years. Never needed a pee test or blood test.

I know a former CDL driver that drove for years, a month ago got chosen for a random, he lost his CDL for marijuana. He is now looking for work and was discharged with cause. He will have a tough time providing for his family. But it's okay he got to smoke weed, I am sure it was well worth it.

I'm not. But I don't know how you can look at that and not see blatant discrimination, if the cannabis didn't factor in some incident.

 

[BULLDOG]

"Drug testing" is bullshit. Nobody should bend over for that kind of statist overreach. I won't even patronize businesses that do it.

I can't believe We the Sheeple just bent over for that shit and enabled it. Now look where we are. Good job, assholes. Way to stand up.

I gotta disagree with you in this one case. People operating heavy equipment, or any other position where less than100% concentration can cause great damage or death should always be subject to drug testing. That's not to say that across the board drug testing for everybody makes any sense at all, but a few specific cases should, and I think will always be appropriate for drug testing.

Except a "drug test" is not a concentration test. It's a chemical analysis, from which assumptions must be extrapolated.

Aye, there's the rub.

The liability that a company must take on is very high, one accident in a commercial vehicle can wipe an entire company out and put 100s out of work.

Do a job that doesn't require drug testing, that is your right.

All the years I did work in industry I have never had an accident...I am very careful and observant of my environment..I didn't get high at work....

Good for you. The issue is the employer has the right to request a drug test and you have the right to refuse. It's no big deal.

Wrong. There are many requirements for the use of very dangerous equipment, and drug testing is already one of them. It would make no sense to leave that decision in the employers hands. If the specific job requires testing, then so be it. However, an employer that demands every employee be tested, no matter what his job is, is abusing his authority.

 

[MaryL]

Legalizing marijuana was...unconstitional. I Live in Colorado. NATIVE. I oppose legalizing Marijuana until the feds make a final decision one way or the other. Please. What this state did was model of what NOT to do.

 

[Pogo]

--- which is why such a test would be done after that accident, just as a breathalyzer test might be done on a driver. Makes sense. The difference is in the pre-emptive testing, when nothing has happened to show just cause.

Nomsayin'?

Unless I'm being hired as a guinea pig to test drugs, no one has any reason or basis to invade one's bodily fluids.

That is your opinion, and if I am hiring a person, I have a right to hire or not hire based on the results of a drug test.

And assuming you're not hiring as a drug test guinea pig, in which case it would actually matter, what's your basis for that? It has to be something a little more solid than "because George Bush said so".

I don't care what Bush said, it isn't relevant to me, however it is some how relevant to you.

A business owner is hiring, he risks his business, you risk nothing. If an accident happens, the liability is all on the owner, not the druggie. A druggie is more likely to steal, more likely to have an accident, more likely to have health issues, higher absentee issues. I am all for not hiring smokers. If you want to engage in high risk behavior, that is well within your rights, but an employer has rights to keep his business as low of risk as possible.

You didn't answer the question.
The question was, what is your BASIS? A string of undocumented ipse dixit "more likelies" is not a basis. What "might" happen is not reality.

If the world worked that way you could never leave the house because you "might" get hit by lightning or a meteor. You couldn't even eat, since you "might" get food poisoning. What's your basis based in reality?

It is the company's right to require or not require, if you don't like it, get a job at someplace that doesn't. Stats bear out the risks, but I really don't care, I will take a drug test, I don't give a ****.

And it's bender-overs like you that dig the hole for the rest of us. As I said before--- thanks a lot.

 

[Moonglow]

Legalizing marijuana was...unconstitional. I Live in Colorado. NATIVE. I oppose legalizing Marijuana until the feds make a final decision one way or the other. Please. What this state did was model of what NOT to do.

They are using your state and other states that legalized weed as a testing ground before national debate...

 

[Papageorgio]

That is your opinion, and if I am hiring a person, I have a right to hire or not hire based on the results of a drug test.

And assuming you're not hiring as a drug test guinea pig, in which case it would actually matter, what's your basis for that? It has to be something a little more solid than "because George Bush said so".

I don't care what Bush said, it isn't relevant to me, however it is some how relevant to you.

A business owner is hiring, he risks his business, you risk nothing. If an accident happens, the liability is all on the owner, not the druggie. A druggie is more likely to steal, more likely to have an accident, more likely to have health issues, higher absentee issues. I am all for not hiring smokers. If you want to engage in high risk behavior, that is well within your rights, but an employer has rights to keep his business as low of risk as possible.

You didn't answer the question.
The question was, what is your BASIS? A string of undocumented ipse dixit "more likelies" is not a basis. What "might" happen is not reality.

If the world worked that way you could never leave the house because you "might" get hit by lightning or a meteor. You couldn't even eat, since you "might" get food poisoning. What's your basis based in reality?

It is the company's right to require or not require, if you don't like it, get a job at someplace that doesn't. Stats bear out the risks, but I really don't care, I will take a drug test, I don't give a ****.

And it's bender-overs like you that dig the hole for the rest of us. As I said before--- thanks a lot.

Poor baby, I make life tougher for you and other druggies? Big ******* deal.

It's assholes like you that can cost a business and hundreds of others their livelihoods because you are a prick.

 

[Pogo]

Legalizing marijuana was...unconstitional. I Live in Colorado. NATIVE. I oppose legalizing Marijuana until the feds make a final decision one way or the other. Please.

Uh -- how is "legalizing" a piece of Nature "unconstitutional" (I assume that's what you meant to write before the last toke)

Where does the Constitution prohibit cannabis?
You know the early drafts of the document were written on hemp paper?

 

[Moonglow]

Alcohol is still the number one health issue in the USA, yet it's legal and every damn one knows the harmful affects..Where is the employment drug tests for this drug???

 

[Pogo]

And assuming you're not hiring as a drug test guinea pig, in which case it would actually matter, what's your basis for that? It has to be something a little more solid than "because George Bush said so".

I don't care what Bush said, it isn't relevant to me, however it is some how relevant to you.

A business owner is hiring, he risks his business, you risk nothing. If an accident happens, the liability is all on the owner, not the druggie. A druggie is more likely to steal, more likely to have an accident, more likely to have health issues, higher absentee issues. I am all for not hiring smokers. If you want to engage in high risk behavior, that is well within your rights, but an employer has rights to keep his business as low of risk as possible.

You didn't answer the question.
The question was, what is your BASIS? A string of undocumented ipse dixit "more likelies" is not a basis. What "might" happen is not reality.

If the world worked that way you could never leave the house because you "might" get hit by lightning or a meteor. You couldn't even eat, since you "might" get food poisoning. What's your basis based in reality?

It is the company's right to require or not require, if you don't like it, get a job at someplace that doesn't. Stats bear out the risks, but I really don't care, I will take a drug test, I don't give a ****.

And it's bender-overs like you that dig the hole for the rest of us. As I said before--- thanks a lot.

Poor baby, I make life tougher for you and other druggies? Big ******* deal.

It's assholes like you that can cost a business and hundreds of others their livelihoods because you are a prick.

Because you can't address the question?

Look, I'd pass a pee test right now. That's not the point.

 

[Moonglow]

Legalizing marijuana was...unconstitional. I Live in Colorado. NATIVE. I oppose legalizing Marijuana until the feds make a final decision one way or the other. Please.

Uh -- how is "legalizing" a piece of Nature "unconstitutional" (I assume that's what you meant to write before the last toke)

Where does the Constitution prohibit cannabis?
You know the early drafts of the documet were written on hemp paper?

The US was also the biggest exporter of hemp, now it's Russia...

 

[Papageorgio]

Legalizing marijuana was...unconstitional. I Live in Colorado. NATIVE. I oppose legalizing Marijuana until the feds make a final decision one way or the other. Please.

Uh -- how is "legalizing" a piece of Nature "unconstitutional" (I assume that's what you meant to write before the last toke)

Where does the Constitution prohibit cannabis?
You know the early drafts of the documet were written on hemp paper?

They weren't smoking it, they were writing on it, big difference.

They can legalize it if they want, company's can drug test, the can test for tobacco, they can decide if they only want people in good health. Freedom is a wonderful thing.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

yep..I can make my own income through my own efforts...

As do I. But if the bender-overs continue to let the whole thing slide, the day will come when we're required to test ourselves. Presumably some of us will have to inform ourselves that we can't hire ourselves because the chemical test says no and the what the State wants is more important.

If you fly a commercial airplane, drive a commercial truck, operate a commercial train, drive a commercial bus and own the business, it is already there.

I don't drive a commercial truck today. But I used to, for years. Never needed a pee test or blood test.

I know a former CDL driver that drove for years, a month ago got chosen for a random, he lost his CDL for marijuana. He is now looking for work and was discharged with cause. He will have a tough time providing for his family. But it's okay he got to smoke weed, I am sure it was well worth it.

I'm not. But I don't know how you can look at that and not see blatant discrimination, if the cannabis didn't factor in some incident.

Discrimination against people using currently federally illegal drugs? Your comments are a joke.